Curtailing gun mayhem

“The scene is horribly familiar: Young bodies lying in pools of blood, hysterical parents cuddling crying children, ambulances rushing the wounded to hospitals and the dead to the morgue. Television cameras, reporters, bewildered public officials, confusion, evasive statements.

“Another deadly shooting at a school somewhere in America. Once the initial shock wears off, the handwringing begins. Grief counselors are dispatched. Psychologists and criminologists offer conflicting views. Memorial ribbons and teddy bears are displayed, and candle-light vigils are held. Let the healing begin, they say. Then there is the question: Why?”

Those are excerpts from an editorial the Telegram & Gazette published on March 27, 1998, after the fatal shooting of four students and a teacher at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark. To emphasize the chilling similarity, they were reprinted, word for word, a year later after Columbine High School killings in Littleton, Colo., on April 20, 1999.

“Those words still apply to the recent massacre at Virginia Tech at Blacksburg, Va., where a student, blinded by hate, gunned down 32 people before ending his own life,” I wrote in another editorial that we published on April 29, 2007. “And, sadly, they are likely to apply to future campus tragedies unless society finds a way to curtail the prevailing culture of gun violence.”

Those words certainly apply to the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman on Dec. 14, 2012. As to “why,” the editorial tried to offer an answer: “The most obvious explanation — which many Americans prefer to ignore — is the insane proliferation of firearms in this country. With an estimated 200 million guns in private hands, it is inevitable that many end up in the wrong hands. As a result, more teen-agers die of gunshot wounds than from other causes. No amount of grief counseling, conflict prevention or psycho-babble will prevent future tragedies if society continues to ignore the forces that turn supposedly every-day people into homicidal monsters.”

In the aftermath of the unspeakable horror in Newtown, it appeared that people had enough of the murderous gun-mayhem epidemic, and that authorities were serious about initiating meaningful controls. The time seemed right for change.

In the days following the Sandy Hook tragedy, gun enthusiasts remained silent. The National Rifle Association de-activated its Facebook page and discontinued its Twitter feed. The Gun Owners of America kept quiet as well. Television talk shows were hard-pressed to find public officials willing to speak in favor of “gun rights.” A visibly shaken President Obama promised reform. “This time, the words need to lead to action,” he said.

Many Americans, including some gun owners, wondered why ordinary citizens would need military-style, high-powered assault weapons, equipped with magazines that could hold as many as 100 bullets designed to inflict maximum damage on the target. They questioned the rationale behind citing the Second Amendment as justification for owning rapid-fire killing machines, as the most potent weapon anyone could carry at the time of the amendment was a single-shot musket.

But as time passed, the anti-gun sentiment seemed to soften. The NRA broke its silence, offering a remedy that would actually increase the number of firearms in civilian hands, recommending that classroom teachers and school administrators be armed. (“The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”) Gun advocates have blamed video games, violent movies, television, mental illness and spotty background checks for gun violence. Meanwhile, the sales of assault weapons have doubled in the country, including that of the AR-15, the weapon of choice of school shooters.

As we’re awaiting new federal controls, some states, including Massachusetts, have pledged to move on their own. Unfortunately, some of those moves have been less than reassuring. House Speaker Robert DeLeo named a “blue ribbon commission” to evaluate mental health and gun-control issues with the hope of recommending measures to prevent future shootings at schools and other public places. “I really want to see this blue ribbon commission, so to speak, to go out and give me some findings that I can prepare some legislation on,” he was quoted as saying.

More often than not, commissions become burial grounds for meaningful action. The Gun Owners Action League, the biggest gun lobby in the state, is now talking about placing police dogs at schools as prevention. The Legislature deemed a proposal by the governor to limit gun sales to one per month too excessive. The recommendation to include personal mental health records in background checks for purchasing firearms was also sidetracked.

The resistance to even minor change is disappointing. The one-gun-per-month limit would still allow buying a dozen weapons a year. And scrutinizing the mental health of potential buyers could safeguard against demented individuals committing mass murder.

Obviously, the most effective solution — such as registering guns and licensing their owners like drivers as done in other countries — is out of reach. But the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, along with strengthened background checks of buyers at gun shows, should be an attainable goal.